comex wrote:
> On 5/19/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> proto related to CFJ 1651
>
> Ha!
>
> I think that "conservative" should be defined. I also think the
> explicit list bit should just be cut out entirely, or replaced with a
> SHOULD. As is, even with your proto, if the initiator decides to make
> an explicit list and gets it wrong, the initiation completely fails.
Only if someone points it out within a week, at which point
(1) it's reasonable to fix records and try again
(2) the initiator can defend against time-limit prosecution with
EXCUSED, provided that e made a good-faith error that wasn't
pointed out until it was too late
